To the dismay of the deniers, the signs of warming are seen in many places on Earth. Here are some examples
A number of researchers have examined the more prominent effects and results of global warming.
- An increase in the levels of DTP in the air and an increase in average temperature causes the development of different allergens and the production of a higher amount of pollen, which causes an increase in the number of people suffering from allergies, and a longer period of suffering.
- Everyone has heard of species in danger such as polar bears, even species that are not in immediate danger change their location, since the beginning of the 20th century you have to look up to higher areas to see plant and animal species, one of the prominent examples are squirrels that rise higher as the temperature rises.
- While the melting of arctic ice causes problems for plants and animals in low latitudes, the early melting ice allows plants in the arctic circle to start their life cycle early and extend the growing period, surveys show that in the arctic circle there has been a biological "boom" in recent years. More and more flowers bloom every summer. More and more "guest" plant species appear and with them also animals that were not familiar in the far north.
- בThe Arctic Circle has many lakes, in the last decades about 125 lakes have disappeared, in an attempt to find out where the water disappeared, it became clear that the melting of the "permafrost" at the bottom of the lakes allowed the water to seep in and the lakes to disappear, the disappearance of the lakes caused the disappearance of all life systems in and around them.
The "freezing" thaw causes the soil to "shrink" and the appearance of sinkholes. Sinkholes cause damage to buildings and infrastructure, the "frost-free" melting on mountain slopes causes rocks and mudslides, there is a fear that the melting will reveal bodies that were buried in the ice, bodies of people who died from epidemics, epidemics that will "thaw" and break out.
- The early spring allows the early birds not only to hunt the worms but also to spread their traits (to advance) and thus advance the chances of survival of the population and the species, in contrast to birds and other animals that continue the migration cycles as in the past, lose the abundance of food and produce fewer offspring, so that the warming causes genetic changes in populations.
- The Alps as well as other mountain ranges are growing, for thousands of years the weight of the glaciers pressed on the surface. The glaciers melt, the pressure is released and the mountains grow.
- Archaeological / historical remains, temples, ancient settlements thousands of years old are monuments to ancient civilizations, monuments that have withstood the events of time and weather for a long time. Until now, since global warming is overwhelming them, rising sea levels, floods, rising levels of pollutants in the air, all together Defeating the symbols of the past
- Melting glaciers, stronger storms and now some are also linking the giant fires to global warming. Forest fires in America (western USA) in Europe and recently in Russia are burning larger areas and burning for longer than was known and known, researchers explain that: early melting of snow leaves the The forests are dry earlier and for a longer time, lightning sets fire to the dry forests and "completes" the disaster.
- "No widow Israel" hundreds of tourists and locals needed treatment after suffering burns from jellyfish... on the coast of Spain, biologists describe the "invasion of the jellyfish fleet on the coast of Spain" as an event whose frequency will increase due to global warming and wild fishing.
- There are also positive warming effects. The wine grape growers in Northern Europe who take care every year and look forward to warm days in which the grapes will ripen, are satisfied, because in recent years spring comes early and the grapes ripen on time and provide fine wine, cheers!
45 תגובות
There aren't many choices, this is life... To keep the heat as it is, we have to sit idle... This is proof that technology is the one that is destroying our beautiful world
And some facts:
The fires in western Russia broke out after coal - Motman ignited in the ground.
In 1972 there were fires (almost as much) in the same area.
And I wonder who is the one who threw a jellyfish into the Moscow river……
Amos:
An interesting idea and... already implemented:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
My father, you are indeed right, it would have been Europe for about 900 years if I am not mistaken.
In any case, since they asked, I will comment.. the level of growth of carbon dioxide, even in relation to carbon dioxide, did not reach 10 percent of its original value, let's say 200 years ago..
And in any case, it is certainly possible to refer to the quantity rule relative to the rest of the atmosphere...
Because any other reference is misleading
What if I told you there was a nuclear bomb in the room but only powerful enough to affect 1 millionth of the room
And now I have doubled its strength and it is 2 millionths of the room...
It didn't really matter did it? She wouldn't even move the ant that walked next to her...
Same…
And the day after tomorrow is science fiction, but like any good movie, it is based on facts...
To be honest, the most interesting fact in the film is that there is indeed such a thing as a sudden stasis and indeed there is a mummy shown that experienced such a stasis and her food was preserved in her stomach until she was found... I think in Siberia...
One thing is certain... any map that predicts a new ice age spells disaster for Europe...
I would like to see the Eurozone survive something like this...
The countries of the third world will really be sought after real estate in such a time..
39 You made me laugh, it really suits him to be a character in some tomb raider or something like that.
Iran - the day after tomorrow?
LD, on the other hand, chose "the day it happened".
Y, I appreciated the experience.
I wouldn't have kept X if you didn't quote me so much 🙂
And as for me, I am generally opposed to the approach that a whole community of scientists is busy working on me, and producing uniform results.
Call it going with the flow, but I think it's the right decision.
Image above right
For Iran - not the whole world, only Europe, which is something like -3% of the earth's surface.
LD, there were a number of claims regarding a new ice age (one of the reports even stated that there is some chance that such a thing would happen) following the disappearance of the sunspots, the sunspots returned when a new solar cycle began, when the return of the sunspots was discovered there was another news if I'm not mistaken, that now The chance of an ice age is zero and you can "breathe a sigh of relief".
Eran, it seems to me that you did not properly address my father's comment regarding the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you should refer to the change in carbon dioxide relative to itself and not to the total of the atmosphere, to claim that the change is negligible relative to the atmosphere is a baseless argument.
To my father, the father of the site 🙂
You did not respond to the first part of the response, but I understand that you are already tired of messing with the "main stream" skeptics of science... and perhaps rightly so.
But in my opinion, your answer only reinforces what I said... that we should be happy about the advance of the blooming of various allergens and the production of a higher amount of pollen, especially because man is reducing the green areas in nature, even though this causes an increase in the number of people suffering from allergies, and a longer period of suffering.
And maybe this is nature's revenge on the man who rents his forests without really caring.. the sin and its punishment..
And to Omri who is looking for answers.
Watch this docu-film and you will get answers to most of the questions you asked.
http://blip.tv/play/AYHoyWgC
To my father….
Let's assume for a moment that you are right... that we are causing warming... in any case the process that will happen right now is what happened in nature during all the previous cycles of this...
The last time there was an ice age in Europe it was created as a result of warming that melted the glaciers that sat on Canada and the United States about 10000 years ago if I'm not mistaken....
In addition to that... melting ice today goes to the sea... fresh water does not transfer heat like salt water... and as you know all weather flow depends on those marine currents... no one is yet sure what will happen but the scenario is that warming will throw the earth into a new ice age...
Either way, it won't be hot here for a long time.
By the way, you did take what is convenient for you, of course at a quarter of a percent, even 100% will barely increase it to half a percent, so it is convenient for you to look at the total atmosphere and not the concentration of carbon dioxide, but it shouldn't be that way. Because the incessant burning of carbon eventually has an effect and very small concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere are enough to block the infrared light from going out, which causes warming.
Amos came up with a really good idea...
Measuring other planets in the solar system to see if their heat has increased…
The only problem is that they measured the last hundreds of millions of years thanks to soil samples...mainly from Antarctica...
It will be a little hard from the moon….
Still, but a brilliant idea…
To my father….
The percentage increase of CO2 is out of the total composition of the ozone... So unless CO2 is a humptic medicine that the more diluted it is the stronger... you are talking about science fiction if you try to link CO2 to warming.
Omri,
He did say in the above passage that there is a political move here that has nothing to do with the climate - listen to it again
(Near the end)
Regarding civil liberties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk0hl4lffDU
Don't be naive - if the quality of the environment was of interest to Al Gore, he wouldn't be flying in private planes and owning a mansion whose electricity bill is the size of a small neighborhood
If you are interested in hearing more in detail
Do a search:
global warming Vaclav Klaus
Alex Jones – The Carbon Tax Deception
the words
and to create absolute control of the government over the citizen and his freedom, not related to the climate at all.
You wrote... and the video you sent does not have these words.
Maybe so, Al Gore wants to change society. What is wrong?
He is still using the lies that consulting scientists told him...
He was looking for a way to help the environment and he found it.
I know a lot of people who want to contribute, get published, look for some piece of shit to clean up, and find it.
Al Gore is not in control at the moment...he is still a character who made a famous movie
Bush is in control, and he claims according to the scientists who told him, that the earth is warming
SO WHAT?
I still haven't found any grounds for controlling the company...and what kind of control exactly? Will they put taxes on polluting cars..? Just terrible control
I may have found lies of scientists, lies that may help the planet and people in the future who will live in a cleaner planet
I have not found control, and I have not yet seen the negative side
Omri, I wish you were right.
But it was not invented by scientists but by powerful people and politicians as an example of Al Gore
The ideology of the Greens (their leaders) is not an ideology of science and altruism
This is a political ideology that came to change society and create total control of the government over the citizen and his freedom, and has nothing to do with the climate.
These are not my words -
These are the words of the former President of the European Union and President of the Czech Republic, Dr. Weslav Klaus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUaX3Mw8qvg
Even if it's a conspiracy, then it's a really good one...created by genius scientists who care about the environment and what man destroys.
Imagine being aware of the enormous destruction we are causing (which has nothing to do with warming). You come to tell this to the government, to the politicians. And no one listens to you..it does not concern the next generations in their tenure.
So how do you create change? They are creating a great conspiracy that man is responsible for the warming whose results will be seen in the years to come.
Writing my message won't change anything
Writing your messages won't change anything in the world... except wasting your time and mine
Creating lies that cause change in action...creates change.
to yx
So NASA is also lying (they also have independent data from those of the IPCC)?
and as a rule,
Is almost the entire scientific community lying to humanity for the benefit of personal or political interests? Selling their souls and betraying the basic values on which they were educated such as the pursuit of scientific truth? Indeed, very sad..
By the way, then, even if there is significant warming as a result of human activity, what is the point of working to stop it?
And maybe we should actually start believing what makes more sense (for example if there is a multidisciplinary scientific consensus) and not what is easier for us to believe.
There is a very simple way to know if there is warming even regardless of a person, you have to check what is happening with our neighbors, Venus and Mars. It is true that Venus is a bit more difficult to inspect (certainly an inspection of the ground), but on Mars, in addition to satellites that are permanently there and measure the climate (for decades), there are also robots that go around and measure it. It is true that even if the neighboring planets are warming, it is possible that man is indeed increasing the warming of the Earth, but if they are not warming, it is likely that man is indeed to blame for the warming of the Earth. (However, there is no disputing that he is guilty of contamination as DHA...)
Ran,
Quite the opposite - not taking into account the following important element:
The IPCC scientists hid and distorted the real temperature data starting in 1995, which showed the cessation of heating and even the beginning of cooling
And only after the Climategate affair - Professor Jones from the IPCC was "forced" to admit that there was indeed no warming in the last 15 years
This means - the temperature is indeed correlated with sunspot activity even after 1980
I don't understand why the discussion of who is "to blame" for the warming is important, it is important for learning more information about the problem, right, but the problem here is that it stems from factor A or factor B or both, and in my opinion the technological capability exists today (as opposed to technology, meaning scientific knowledge) engineering ability, and the appropriate resources) to solve this problem, regardless of its origins, whether the solution is to blow up some volcanoes with nuclear weapons (and I'm not claiming that this is the solution, I'm just demonstrating ability!)
And that's what we need to focus on...
Ran that looks like a good link, it's 9 sections, I'll look it up soon.
No, the spirit of science is not related to warming, it stops at the fact that I don't have the possibility to constantly monitor the reactions. When I come and see a comment that has been blocked unnecessarily I release it.
Father, as usual my "terrible" comments are blocked, why don't you change the laws to be a little more open, does the spirit of science stop with climate beliefs?
Asaf. Shallow article as always. As usual, there is no connection between the unequivocal declarations and the "facts" you bring here.
Hint, cause -> effect, try to follow the scientific basis and not your belief.
I highly recommend you read real climate science and watch (in horror I guess) how all the balloons are blown up to the last one on a daily basis, for more than ten years. The site is in English. I hope this is not a problem.
climateaudit.org. I warn, viewing the site is difficult for believers.
It is very easy to find a nice graph on the Internet that describes the relationship between solar activity and the increase in temperature on Earth - here is an example: http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t63/izzy_bizzy_photo/capture3.jpg
It is so convenient for us to look at this graph, which resonates so much among climate skeptics of all kinds.
But have you ever wondered why the orange line in the graph suddenly got shorter around 1980?
Here is the disturbing answer that is so easy for us to suppress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovluo-FdIp4&feature=related
(For the time-poor among us, just skip to 05:30)
Your 0.00X% is a tens of percent increase in the concentration of DTP in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Not a negligible percentage
My father..humans are responsible for the pollution
Humans are responsible for killing animals and deserting areas...as well
But to say that humans cause global warming is a sad joke
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before and after the industrial age changed by no less than 0.00X digits...
And I wasn't wrong about the number of digits to the right of the point..
Our influence is zero...
Moreover
Not only was there no correlation index found between the increase in the CO2 level and warming... but on the contrary... it was found that warming is the one that causes an increase or decrease in the CO2 level...
The sun is solely responsible for our condition and we depend on its grace...
X is right... you should watch the movie and understand how there is an entire industry that makes billions at the expense of the Friar world on this issue...
In addition to this.. there are tens of thousands of scientists with the same opinion.. and anyone who worked on the council on behalf of the UN who claimed this was fired from his job, but this did not prevent the UN committee from putting the names of those scientists in the reports on the SO CALLED global warming...
By the way, here is the really correct equation for CO2
There are huge accumulations of it mostly locked under the sea...and when the world warms up...then in about 800 years from now the accumulations are released...and vice versa when it cools down...
There is no debate about global warming as a matter of course, but about its causes... which are not as clear as the "environmentalists" would like us to think.
A. There is not enough data on the subject since one hundred and fifty years of measurements do not provide a clear picture.
B. Both according to glacier drilling (to the depths of ice formed hundreds and thousands of years ago) and according to written history it turns out that there is a cycle of warming/cooling.
third. The whole issue is still in its infancy.
d. The economic interests (like the carbon-dollars), mainly around the rain forests, pollute any serious research.
God. The holes in the ozone - almost all of them - are a natural phenomenon designed to drain unnecessary heat from the planet. What's more, they expand and contract cyclically.
In conclusion, there is no conclusive proof of the sole guilt of man, even if he has a part in the phenomenon.
For LD, no, because in practice the areas covered by vegetation are shrinking due to desertification and human actions such as the destruction of the rainforest in Brazil, there is an article on this by NASA and Assaf is preparing a Hebrew version that will be published soon.
I also agree with X
They have not yet provided evidence for the causes of the warming
on the BBC show. Show the scientists who proved that it is the sun, sunspots and their cycles that create the temperature change.
Man is negligible. Yes, it would be nice to lower the pollution, because it simply suffocates and pollutes the person and other systems.
and show you graphs that are unequivocally sunspots...
Show a forecaster that predicts the temperature more accurately than normal forecasters with the help of sunspots.
what can we do ? is nothing. Because we have no influence.
Take sunglasses.
What needs to be checked is the sunspot cycle, and the scientists who do it are few.
Because the stupid majority adheres to the theories of stubborn scientists who are not willing to test the new theories, and believe me... I saw on the show how they show a scientist who wrote a book about the warming due to man, fighting against another scientist who developed the theory about sunspots
It's amazing that wisdom grows the ego. and does not hide it
Better than deniers, okay. The earth is not warming.
Now explain what is so burning for you to say that the person is not guilty? That the person is not responsible for what happens? And let's say he's not responsible, I don't know about you, but when I'm asked what the pink future looks like for me, one of the things is that there will be no smokestacks on the horizon, that the sky will be blue, that in China and other places the sun will not hide behind a permanent smog but will stay regularly against a blue background.
That's what I'm asking for. The future will be rosy if we move towards such a future and not get stuck in our stinking present. Lower the chimneys, build wind turbines, cover the roofs of the houses with solar cells, and in general stop the dirty use of oil as an energy source. Stop cutting down trees, stop kicking the ball with our mountains of waste, plastics and plastic bags in every hole, even where you shouldn't see them at all - in the streams. Stop injecting CO2 and other useless gases into the air we breathe. We live from oxygen, so let's please leave the composition of the atmosphere intact - there is a lot of air around the globe, true, but it is not infinite.
And one more thing - let the oil-owners, our closest and less-close neighbors, suffocate the cholera. Our friends they never were. The best national story that can be told to future generations in this country, in this nation, is how we stuck them with useless oil, the poor and disgruntled, haters more than ever, after the clean energy message came out of Israel from all over the world. Now let's dive into this place where we can even tell this story.
Artist.
"An increase in the levels of DTP in the air and an increase in the average temperature causes the development of different allergens to occur and the production of a higher amount of pollen, which causes an increase in the number of people suffering from allergies, and a longer period of suffering."
First of all, it is still not clear to me why only GHG is being talked about when it is only a tiny part of the greenhouse gases and it is not clearly proven that it is the cause of the rise in temperatures and that the other 98 percent of gases in the atmosphere do not experience changes?
Apart from that, there is actually an increase in the amount of tumors in nature that "causes suffering to allergic people", but the fact that the amount of tumors is increasing is actually excellent news for the planet, isn't it??
The earth has been warming in the last two hundred and thirty years.
This is an observational fact, with which there is no point in arguing, beyond the strictness of the measurement methods.
The earth has already experienced periods of warming and cooling in the past - over periods of hundreds of years, and also thousands and millions of years.
The question arises: what can be done?
In my humble opinion, the main channel used by environmental scientists (namely: man causes warming, therefore, if he stops his actions, the warming trend will stop or even reverse) is wrong, for two reasons:
1. It is doubtful whether the marginal effect of human activity actually causes warming (as far as is known there was no such effect millions of years ago)
2. There is even greater doubt if it is possible to motivate most of the countries of the world to slow down their economic growth from abject poverty in the direction of life at the desired Western standard.
Therefore, with all the appreciation for the existing channel, I expect, as an inhabitant of the planet, from its scientists and governments, that given the warming and its destructive results, they will allocate resources for the development of technologies that will allow a better survival of human culture.
Two things,
X's problem
Secondly, no person who has any understanding of the matter claims that there is no climate change, what is not clear is what causes these climate changes, is it man or is it a natural process unrelated to man and would have occurred even if we did not exist.
I don't understand the argument.
This is not part of the hacked emails,
This is taken from a BBC interview with Prof. Jones after the disclosure.
There has been no warming for 15 years - the head of scientific research of the IPCC declares this accept with a committee.
And an even more fundamental point - the FDH went up and the heating did not...
This demolishes all the pseudo science that PAD causes the temperature to rise
Again, how many times should this be repeated?
This is a media spin - most glaciers in the world grow not small.
Only the shrinking glaciers are always shown to the public.
Even the famous large glacier that is now broken in Greenland - has grown in the last 8 years!
It is the nature of a glacier expanding on the surface of the sea - to break at any time.
But apparently you can't argue with faith.
There is no doubt at all about the warming of the earth, there are perhaps certain bodies that like to greatly exaggerate the phenomenon and there are those that deny it and all this because of personal interests, in any case the warming is certain and cannot be denied.
Regarding the influence of man on the process, according to many physicists the process is mostly caused by the influence of the sun and not because of man, although man has a role in encouraging the intensification of the phenomenon by emitting a very large amount of greenhouse gases.
Various extreme phenomena such as floods and strong cold waves do not contradict the fallacy of global warming, but only reinforce it, at the same time as changes in the weather are accompanied by extreme phenomena such as cold waves, floods, heatwaves, etc., tracking the melting of the glaciers is a pretty good measure of warming, it is possible To clearly see the climatic changes and even the acceleration in the process, the melting of the glaciers entails many effects, even affecting earthquakes, because now there is a weaker force that supports the tectonic plates and there is less force that is able to face the pressures inside the earth.
And to the public who thinks to buy the arguments of X is smaller than Y
I myself asked the NASA climate expert about Climategate (the hacking of the computers of the University of East Anglia from which Ron allegedly quoted scientists) and here is what she had to respond:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/climategate-is-nonsense-2701101/
Ron. Thank you. It was nice, you're back with your nonsense under a new name. Can't you resist?
Extra:
If there is no heating then what is the cause of all the extreme phenomena in the weather?
Here is the scientific explanation for the phenomena we have recently experienced (heat in western Russia, floods in Pakistan + extreme cold in the southern hemisphere and northern Russia, etc.)
From the news website RT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRXZ1B5foE
@X
No one denies there is warming?
There is nothing so basic that you won't find a madman to deny it.
There are those who deny that bacteria cause diseases, there are those who deny that the earth is round (!) and there are many who repeat the well-worn claim that the earth in general is cooling.
Who is the denier here?
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the center of the row over hacked e-mails.
Q - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present
? there has been no statistically significant global warming
ANSWER
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Q - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present
has there been statistically significant global cooling?
ANSWER
no. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Repeating the lie 100 times is not science, it is propaganda
Agree with X
And in my opinion, whoever denies that man is to blame for extreme weather is wrong.
No one denies that there is warming, they deny the idea that man is responsible for warming.